Another 5.3 with AFM bites the dust ~ Chevrolet Active Fuel Management Problems

Discussion in 'GM Powertrain' started by hblock72, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. roknwoe

    roknwoe New Member

    To: Phoebeisis

    I have a great idea, let's let CKNSLS do some actual research (home work) to get the numbers you suggested above.

    Then, I will cross check (grade) it for him.

    I am waiting.

    CKNSLS Rockstar 100 Posts

    That's great -3 posts. I am a memeber of two other Silverado/Sierra forums I am well aware of what's going on with our trucks. Welcome to the forum. I am glad you got a good "year" truck and the rest of us our driving powder kegs waiting to burn oil.

    Again - Welcome to the forum!
  3. roknwoe

    roknwoe New Member

    To: CKNSLS
    I would feel better about joining the forum...if you would do the research suggested by Phoebeisis's, and prove your worth to this forum.

    How does the old expression go: "money talks and bull ?X?X walks"

    I am still waiting to cross check (grade) your research!

    CKNSLS Rockstar 100 Posts

    You are going to be waiting a long time.....
  5. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    It is impossible to get the numbers posters require to really see if there is an increase in oil consumption problems relative to earlier non AFM models
    But crudely comparing what they can get-2006 vs 2007 might give them a hint

    We have been spoiled-so many drivetrains get 150,000 trouble free miles(on GM trucks the AT seems to need rebuilding at 150,000 or so-lotta miles)
    I wouldn't be happy with excess consumption at 100,000 miles-but oil is cheap-I would just carry oil-check every 2 days to see if use is spiking-
    more or less just live with it-or try to sweet talk GM into going half price on a repair/replace IF I thought it was going to suddenly increase dramatically-and fail.
    If the use stays constant qt per 1000 miles-I would live with it
    BUT keep a close eye on it

    GM probably sold roughly the same 2006 5.3 as 2007 5.3 so just comparing total complaints-MIGHT give a hint- percentage of complaints being oil consumption hint also but if other annoying problems cropped up in either year-it will change things
    so maybe just total oil consumption 2006 vs 2007 would be best
    maybe get the average mileage when complaints cropped up also

    I'm planning to eventually upgrade to a 2004 Suburban-they are dropping in price-to get better brakes-better mpg-but mainly brakes and fewer miles and years-I won't expect better reliability than my 1998-it has been a winner in that respect
    I would steer clear of 2007 for now-just as i would steer clear of 2000-2002 because of that piston slap noise early 5.3's get sometimes(not a reliability apparently problem-mainly a resale problem)
  6. roknwoe

    roknwoe New Member

    To: Phoebeisis

    The following came from as of 7-20-2013:

    2006 Total Silverado complaints: 144
    2006 Total Silverado complains for oil loss: 2 (1% of total complaints)
    2006 Total Silverado not for oil loss: 142
    2006 average mileage when oil loss occurred: 55k

    2007 Total Silverado complaints: 260
    2007 Total Silverado complains for excessive oil consumption: 39 (15% of total complaints)
    2007 Total Silverado not for oil loss: 221
    2007 average mileage when excessive oil consumption occurred: 58k

    If you read my 1st post, I indicated I found a sweet spot for the 2006 5.3 v8 engine, on its low incidence of oil consumption problems, compared to other years. Both you and I know it is not possible to acquire the total complaints sent to GM for excessive oil burning. Not surprisingly, CKNSLS doesn't know this, and insisted on an impossible task.

    Excessive oil consumption increased from 1% to 15% in 1 year (from 2006 to 2007).
    Only 2 Silverado owners reported an oil loss for the 2006 Silverado.
    Yet, 39 Silverado owners report excessive oil consumption for the 2007 Silverado.

    However, the percentage of excessive oil consumption increased by 15 times in a single year (from 2006 to 2007).
    This is significant, and combined with all other complaints in the forums, the GM buying public should be outraged.
    It points to a serious problem for present and future Silverado owners who buy new or buy the used "oil burners".

    Not all Silverado buyers are computer savvy, and register their complaint on a web site, or forum, for readers to track.
    Some buyers just trade it off and take the loss.
  7. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts


    Thanks-interesting stuff.
    Couple of questions-why the different terminology??
    Odd that they use different terms-
    Kinda wondering are they measuring the same thing-or did you just use the terms that way
    Not meaning to be picky-just precise as possible

    And are these cumulative complaints-in other words are the 2006 model year Sierra complaints the total of the oil loss complaints from 2006 2007 2008 2009 etc ??

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to actually get the numbers you need
    I don't think the FEDs collect numbers on this-because they really aren't safety risks problems
    Does JD POWERS keep any sort of records like that?

    Oh my guess-everyones guess-and GM has said as much haven't they?- There is a problem with the early AFM years
    -some of it could be the "weak batch of rings" didn't GM service bulletin that?? Has GM done anything to suggest-service bulletins etc- that directly imply a problem with the early AFM motors-that is actually AFM related-and not just "bad parts" related-the baffle in the oil pan retrofit-that suggested an AFM connection somehow-right

    Actual numbers 39 reports excess oil consumption-maybe 400,000 trucks in the denominator-tiny tiny 1/10,000 of course the 39 is an under reporting-we just don't know the numerator-number of trucks with the problem
    Kinda an impossible task-finding actual numbers with the problem- if the 2 cases of 2006's with oil loss means the same as the 39 2007 cases of excess consumption-yeah-that is suggestive
    20x as many cases 2 vs 39 IF those terms mean the same thing-excess oil comsumption

    Yeah-impossible- but ...
    I would buy a 2004-2006 (don't have the $$ for the 2007 anyway-big step up in price with the newer body style and fancier engines-better FE too a consideration 18 mpg vs 20 mpg 2006 vs 2007)

    CKNSLS Rockstar 100 Posts


    Whatever the number is...based on the posts on this and OTHER FORUMS it's LIKELY a small number. Of course, if it is your truck it's one too many.
  9. roknwoe

    roknwoe New Member

    To: Phoebeisis

    You remarked "odd they used different terms" to describe oil burning in the 2006, versus "excessive oil consumption" for the 2007 Silverado.

    Good question! We do have to be precise about such things...otherwise we might have CKNSLS to deal with! Actually, CKNSLS was suppose to handle this statistical analysis, but I see he prefers to "stand on the side" and take pot shots at this serious subject with "opinions" instead of factual information.

    Here is the exact term in for the 2006 Silverado:

    "OIL LOSS"
    2006 Chevrolet Silverado

    1st of 2 complaints listed:

    Have been a Chevy owner for 25 years , have never had a truck use 2 quarts of oil in between oil change's . I have 4-5 neighbor's with the same problem , GM needs to come up with a fix . I will think twice about buying another Silverado , might have to look at a Toyota .

    2nd of 2 complaints listed:

    Same as the rest. Alot of runaround and no solution,other than getting a different truck. I know people with the same truck and some burn oil like mine and some say theres doesn't. Payed $100.00 for the dealership to hand me a bunch of papers to say this is normal. Only normal for the 2 stroke I got stuck with. Had a 1989 s10 Blazer with over 250,000 mi that was used the same, driven the same ,but didn't burn oil the same as this piece of crap. Just got a letter from GM stating my satisfaction with there product was important to them, related to a heater problem(had it in 4 times for various problems with that too) and they say they will pay for that fix. Step up to the plate and fix my burning oil problem. PS I bought stock in havoline oil and am now rich!!

    Here is the exact term in for the 2007 Silverado:

    2007 Chevrolet Silverado

    I read all 39 of these, and they all refer to oil burning, just like the 2006 had oil burning in just the 2 complaints. Because I quoted from I had to use the same verbiage...even though it raises to "are they really talking about the same thing"? And, yes they are talking about the same thing.

    Why are they using different terminology to talk about the same thing? I dont know. My that either GM came up with this new term, or they did to describe the horrendous oil burning of the 2007 Silverado.

    Here is your 2nd question:
    And are these cumulative complaints-in other words are the 2006 model year Sierra complaints the total of the oil loss complaints from 2006 2007 2008 2009 etc ??"

    The statistics I am quoting from are just the Silverado...not the GMC Sierra.
    The 2006 Silverado complaints are strictly 2006 Silverado complaints for those people who complained about their 2006 Silverado vehicle on; This number does not include 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013. Just 2006! And, this number does not include the GMC Sierra 1500. It is stricly just the Silverado. The 2006 GMC Sierra had no engine oil burning complaints listed. The 2007 GMC Sierra 1500 had 6 excessive oil consumption complaints of 13 total complaints.

    You indicated:

    "if the 2 cases of 2006's with oil loss means the same as the 39 2007 cases of excess consumption-yeah-that is suggestive
    20x as many cases 2 vs 39 IF those terms mean the same thing-excess oil comsumption"

    My response:

    Yes! It means the same thing! Yes, the term "oil loss" for 2006 means the same thing as "excessive oil consumption" for 2007.

    - - - Updated - - -

    To: CKNSLS

    You indicated "Whatever the number is...based on the posts on this and OTHER FORUMS it's LIKELY a small number".

    My question to you is: What kind of crystal ball are you using to come up with this stuff?

    Do you ever do any research before posting anything on the forums?

    How do you know "it's likely a small number"? Does your crystal ball tell you this?

    Incidentally, do you work for a GM garage? Do you work for GM?

    The reason I because I have heard there are trolls who "pose" for special interest groups.

    Are you a GM troll?

    I am also really disappointed in your technique of taking "pot shots" of other's posts...using opinions and conjecture...but then when someone presses you to do some research and report what you refuse! Are you afraid of being exposed for the BS-ing that you post? I have answered Phoebesis's questions using actual data from; Just where does your actual data (facts) come from?

    I am also disappointed that you made fun of my "3 total posts" on this web opposed to your 90+ posts. If I analysed your 90+posts...
    would I find any factual information on them? Or, just opinions, conjecture, and no facts?

    Last edited: Jul 21, 2013
  10. CKNSLS

    CKNSLS Rockstar 100 Posts

    We talked about the "factual data" you used and how it's at best suspect. I am not going to do any research, because that data I would use is suspect as well. You based a purchasing decision on this suspect data...good for you.This is a public forum and the Internet. As long as these post do not break any rules of this forum-they are what they are. This is the Internet-it's the wild west. My opinions are just opinions. AS is my opinion that oil usage in the model years AFTER 2006-2007 IS NOT WIDESPREAD. My other 90 posts are either helpful information or again MY OPINIONS. If you can't sleep somenight you can be my guess and check them out.

    No I do not work for GM.

Share This Page

Newest Gallery Photos